Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

For 20 years, gay men have vigorously fought the contention that HIV is a disease of homosexuals.

So a gay organization is being criticized for reaching out to it's community.Would you fault a minority group for putting a face that their community recognizes. This is just gay bashing!When you see a face for sickle cell anemia it is Black, never saw any other group who gets it being shown yet they are never criticized.

Quote

Activist Cynthia Davis, who has labored for years to ease the stigma of HIV in the African American community, said the Gay & Lesbian Center's campaign could erase years of progress in a community that is skittish about homosexuality but at high risk for the disease.

This says it all on her agenda.

« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 09:42:03 AM by alisenjafi »

Logged

"You shut your mouthhow can you sayI go about things the wrong wayI am human and I need to be lovedjust like everybody else does"The Smiths

This although trying to reach a target group, is in my opinion irresponsible.. The reason why people of all orientations have become soft about the issue is (again my opinion) that people think that "hey.. i can take meds.. no biggie"

Dang it Peter... i have a bad feeling that there will have to be something huge that happens to the whole population before folks get a grip!!

I have no probs with the concept. It's a necessary campaign area, LA or not LA, but by the stats esp LA. But it's such a difficult nut to crack.

Let us gloss over the factual inaccuracy in the copywriting, or the dumbing down of the accurate message for the audience (In LA 75% of people who test HIV positive each year are gay or bisexual, perhaps?). IMHO dumbing down never helps. In my experience, the only thing that changes what gay men a think about HIV, and the risks they take in this respect, is other gay men, talking with them, mano a mano. Let us also gloss over the generally Caucasian characteristics of the models too.

As usual with these billboard campaigns etc, it will make nil or marginal difference, and not reach the parts the really need to be reached. Them drag queens at Stonewall Bar weren't fighting for sensible integration of personal and public health, they were fighting for sexual autonomy, and yes, pleasure, and until campaign people get their head round this little piece of gay liberation history, they's gonna go nowhere intersting in a hurry.

Harm reduction works for drugs, and it works for sex. So why this campaign, I ask myself, which is begs for me the questions "why should I?" and "how does it make my sex safer?". It's so damn moral.

Short version: right target, wrong campaign (for me, but I'm a Brit so what do I know about LA and what works there etc).

There's a similar (topic wise) campaign in the UK just now, the materials start "This information is for HIV-positive and HIV-negative men". (might have a gay in there somewhere, can't remember). "HIV is your responsibility". I look forward to the evaluation. It's different. I dunno if it will work. These things are very hard to get on the spot.

We talk about who is reading this, "the target audience." I hope they market this very carefully. I wonder what every other type of person (non-gay) must be trying to figure out when they drive by that bill-board in LA saying "AIDS IS A GAY DISEASE".. "Kewl, I am in the clear". "They were responsible for this". bla bla bla...

Where is the upshot here?? I am having trouble with seeing it... How can others see it? Esp driving by at 65mph..

This ad stinks of politics. We have an administration in office that openly declares homosexuality a perversion and against God and human nature. Of course they want to label this a gay disease. They lie about everything else why not make HIV/AIDS solely the fault of all gayís? Is anyone seeing the real agenda here?

Label it a gay disease so we wonít have to waste taxpayer money on them. This way they can completely stop funding Ryan White instead of just flat funding it. And then they can do away with ADAP altogether. So they can put more money into more important issues like forcing democracy on people that live in the stone ages.

I just wonder what Jerry Falwell think of this being labeled a gay disease? Iím sure he preaches AIDS is a gay disease from his bully pulpit every chance he gets.

Itís a disease for Christ sakes. That anyone can and will get if not properly educated in prevention and safer sex habits.

It doesn't bother me. This campaign isn't being done in a vaccum. There are plenty of other messages out there, so I don't think someone will simply see this one ad and conclude that HIV isn't a risk for their group. If it's targeted very well, then it's unlikely to be seen (much) by the non-target group anyway. Plus the ad specifically states that HIV isn't just a gay disease. I think they are just using that statement to get your attention.

I do find it odd that in justifying the ad, they make this statement...

Quote

While men of color represent the largest group of people living with HIV/AIDS in Los Angeles County, it is rarely noted that the vast majority of them are gay and bisexual men.

So they at least acknowledge that gay/bisexual men of color is the largest group impacted by AIDS and yet they use two white models. That seems odd if they were truly trying to get the message out to the people most impacted by HIV.

I don't see anything wrong with the ad. It's when people only read the subject title they object without first reading the contents. It's really a good attention getter to get people to read on. It's a very good add.

To clarify - I don't agree that the need to raise consciousness within one group means that the mislabeling of a disease for propaganda purposes is acceptable. Frankly I think we'd all have a cow if a Republican senator said that HIV is a gay disease, but we are expected to understand the power of us spouting the same idiocy for our own purposes?

So what then we explain to the hetero teens who cite the the same logic they we teach them that HIV is something they need to worry about?

Bottom line is empowerment shouldn't come at the price of a lie...or at least a gross misstatement.

Big ditto (particularly the Republican senator slant--or say the CDC came out with this ad?)

It is still predominantly a disease of homosexual (I'm including the bi's here so they don't bitch) men here in Australia. Around 85-90% of infections are through homosexual male cotact so I can see the wisdom in targeting particular groups where that is the case.

I suspect it's that stuff about tailoring the message to match the epidemiology.

It's all about marketing to a particular target group. I agree that HIV/AIDS plays no favorites when it comes to sexual orientation, but I think lesbians/gays are more apt to pay attention to an ad that is focused and targeted directly towards them then the general public at large. And if in fact it is true that gay and bisexual men make up the greatest percentage of new HIV infections in the LA market than it only makes sense to target that group. You put your marketing and advertising dollars to work where it's going to make the most impact.

Yeah Eldon, but where HIV affects particular sections of the community more than others, it's appropriate to target awareness and education campaigns to those groups in terms that they understand. Eg, pictures of muscle-bound white guys aren't going to be terribly effective in sub-saharan Africa.

While I realize stigma is a sticky issue and that globally, HIV is a largely heterosexual issue, in my back yard it isn't.

I'll never forget the response people had to an education campaign here that showed a cadre of young, black, urbran heterosexuals living with AIDS.

It was well done, moving and totally ineffective. It might have played very well in Chicago, where it was made, but it fell flat here where the majority of the people viewing it were white, middle class rural youth for whom the message was lost.

But when there was a young, white, hometown Mormon boy speaking to the class, they listened, asked lots of questions and the impression was they left with at least some idea they were at risk.

The focus on the gay community in Los Angeles is appropriate, just as would one focusing on Navajo youth here. Blanket messages don't work. Maybe creating target-specific ones will.

mark - I agree with you 100% on this, but targeting a group and mis-education are two different things.

What of all the men who claim they are not gay/bisexual but only have sex with men?

Iggy, then there should also be targeted PSA's for other groups in addition to gays. From what I've been told by local health workers, HIV (and syphilis) numbers are rising, in our area, primarily among the gay community. If these PSA's are put out by the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, I'd expect them to target gays. Perhaps "HIV is a heterosexual disease" will be next followed by "HIV is an African disease" then maybe "HIV is an IV drug users disease". I'm not sure how to reach those MSM's that don't identify as gay or bi... maybe "HIV is a MSM disease" will help. Who knows. These ads really do need to be targeted, though. Maybe "HIV is our disease; don't let it become yours" with a picture of a group of folks with a variety of ethnicities, sexes, etc would be best. I'm just glad to see SOMETHING being done in terms of increasing awareness of HIV / AIDS.

Just so no-one is confused, Iggy requested that his and Peter's threads on this subject were merged, because as he pointed out, this is too important a subject to have spread out in two threads.

For what it's worth, here's my 2p on the subject:

As I'm not a gay man, I can't possibly say whether or not this ad is going to make any gay men sit up and take notice. I do know, however, that for any straights seeing these posters, it's just going to reinforce the myth and it won't encourage them to use condoms or get tested.

There has been some evidence (in Uganda) that simple ad campaigns encouraging people (as in everyone) to use condoms do work to an extent. It seems to me that we need to stop targeting groups and target the human population as a whole. Every time we focus on certain groups, it reinforces the myth that only certain groups are at risk. As we all know, it's not who you do, it's how you do it.

Saying all that, I'm torn over this issue nonetheless. I suppose something is better than nothing - but then again, if it's reinforcing the myths, is it really? As I said, I'm torn on this issue.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

ANY AND ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE NOT COVERING UP FOR SEX IN THE HERE AND NOW ARE "BUG CHASERS", "PROPONENTS OF HIV AS A STRAIGHT DISEASE", AND ANY OTHER INANE THING YOU CAN SAY ABOUT THEM. I, FOR ONE, AM TIRED OF THIS VERY BULLSHIT "GAY DISEASE" RESPONSE TO A VIRAL PROTEIN THAT WILL CAUSE YOUR BODY TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WILL NOBODY EVER GET IT???????????

Logged

The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals,and 362 to heterosexuals.This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals, It's just that they need more supervision.Lynn Lavne

When we were in Montreal, I kept seeing this poster in bathrooms. It seemed like it was everywhere we went. Granted, we were in a 'gay section' so I don't know if these PSA's were widespread or localized. Herpes isn't a gay thing, to be sure, but I, and several others, did notice these posters. What caught my attention was the pictures (DUH!). If these were in English, or if my French was a lot better, I would have read them. As it was, I did try to read them. This just shows that targetting the appropriate audience can be effective. If these pictures had been of African women or a heterosexual hispanic couple, I doubt I'd have given them a second glance.

Aids is a gay disease. Aids is a straight disease. Aids is a black disease. Aids is a mother's disease. Aids is a father's disease. Aids is a baby's disease. Aids is a gay korean cross-dressing storeowner's disease.

WHO CARES???

Mentioning one of the above statements doesn't negate the others. Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch? Perceptions are perceptions, people will think what they will; the only true thing this ad campaign is gauranteed to do is to anger people into speaking about it.

I think the reason it's become such a hot button is because people perceive it to be a pointing finger of blame toward gays. I would be curious to know if those angry about it looked deep inside themselves and answer the following question as honestly as possible:

I do, however do think you make a great point:I think this is a fair question and I'm considering it before further reply.

#1 I'm not feigning anything, I'm asking a question;#2 How terribly benevolent of you - yet somehow strangely shaming in a right of its own; and,#3 You needn't apologize, because I've already forgiven you.

LOL

BTW, it really makes me sad to report you to the moderators as an Al Queda Terrorist. LOL I think they're gonna ban you.

And the campaigns all share one common factor: find and exploit a controversial angle. As if it's not enough that we gays on a daily basis must deal with religious and political controversies stirred up by our opponents who sometimes question our very existence, right to love and live safely, we must also contend with AIDS groups hitting us with new controversial campaigns every few months.

Since when did controversy become THE fundamental building block on which to create effective gay health programs? Is there any verifiable proof controversies lead to a better well-being for gay men and is any other community subjected to constant, hostile, accusatory social marketing campaigns? end quote.

We will lose funding if this administration can deem this a GAY disease. Thatís my concern.

I do not believe this campaign will accomplish anything as prevention messages in the US are all but useless. We should not be arguing about the contents of the ad so much as the message that needs to be sent to stop new infections. It is time for some truly new ideas in prevention.

While the building burns, we all quibble on the best way to throw water on the fire. Before you know it, too late, the building is gone. Same with HIV. We either get a handle on this globally or eventually it will bankrupt the world both fiscally as well as morally.

I still feel that there is a false sense of security regarding the outcome of AIDS... yes... I'm on meds... Yes i have a pulse..Yes.. I'm able to take care of myself and those around me...

I as of current have a CD4 of 176... i have been able to maintain said CD4 since 2003... am i alive? not really... am i sad.. NOT AT ALL.. do i think that a billboard or a sign in the bathroom will make a difference.. NO!!!

this is the slippery slope of the "AIDS is a manageable disease" way of thinking...

In one sense it is the same arguement as African Americans not like anyo one else but themselves to use the "N" word. And again the issue seems lost that gays need to practice safe sex, for 20 years we wore the mantle one ad isn't changing anyones mind.

Newt the guys to me look hispanic, and in NYC almost all gay ads have Black or Hispanic guys. In fact I live in the capital of Hispanic gay life in NYC, so again if you are targeting your audience, then you want jesus to look like you. Actually I wonder now why there aren't more str8 AIDS organizations, oh yes Bush 's churches!

Logged

"You shut your mouthhow can you sayI go about things the wrong wayI am human and I need to be lovedjust like everybody else does"The Smiths

I'm wondering if a series of ads along the lines someone else mentioned would work: AIDS IS A LATINO DISEASE, AIDS IS A HETEROSEXUAL DISEASE, AIDS IS A CHILDREN'S DISEASE, etc. as the bold statement and then in a chain of phrases underneath list all of the various communities affected. And in bold typeface YOU CAN HELP STOP IT BY ALWAYS USING A CONDOM FOR INTERCOURSE. I'd rather use a stronger word for intercourse, but obviously that won't fly in a sex skittish society.

Even if some people don't like the AIDS IS A GAY DISEASE for the obvious stated reasons, maybe it stir up some stuff about prevention which can only be to the good.

This epidemic cannot be gotten under control until the infection rate is brought down significantly. I'm willing to consider various approaches and welcome more suggestions here.

MtD- when I got my confirmatory results, Callen-Lorde (NYC) gave me a folder with pamphlets. One of them showed a cartoon of a guy telling his mom over the phone, and he in fact told her it was just like having Diabetes.

I personally agree that just that ad 'Aids is a gay disease', driving by at a minimum of 65 mph on an LA freeway, won't do much but enforce the stereotype.

The first billboard could be "aids is a gay disease", but before the next exit, and before some redneck on vacation is able to say "see that Flo, I to..", the next billboard should say "aids is a straight disease', and so on. Get their attention, then shatter the myth and tell them like it is.

Andy brings up a point that I have been in favor of for years and years. One fact remains ................ Most prevention advertising monies come from the CDC, who still to this day do not want to spend any ad monies on prevention, outside the Gay Community, mainly becasue of their very lazy data gathering techniques.

Unfortunately the one holding the purse strings is still the one in charge.

Sad but true.

Logged

The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals,and 362 to heterosexuals.This doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals, It's just that they need more supervision.Lynn Lavne

MtD- when I got my confirmatory results, Callen-Lorde (NYC) gave me a folder with pamphlets. One of them showed a cartoon of a guy telling his mom over the phone, and he in fact told her it was just like having Diabetes.

This whole thing upsets me,I may not be a well educated women,but this whole thing pisses me off. People have been trying to say since the 80's that this is a gay disease.Well I disagree.I am a straight women who made a consious choice to have unprotected sex.I myself new the risk,being someone who has worked for hospice for many years and decided that it would never happen to me.Well I was wrong. It isn't any particular group; It's a human issue.Our people (Brothers and Sisters of the world) All of us as human beings should want to help everyone and try to educate the world about HIV and AIDS.Our children are our future. This is the kind of campains that we should be doing.We as individuals need to take responsability for our own actions. I chose not to protect myself knowing what is out there.I have knowone to blame but me. When I was diagnosed over a year ago I chose to tell anyone who would listen, because I wanted people to see that it can happen to anyone.If I can make one person stop and think about protecting themselves and to get tested,then I know that this has happened to me for a reason.I believe things could dnange if we just stop trying to say that aids is a gay disease or a AA or anyother culture that is out there .WE ARE MOTHERS, FATHERS,BROTHERS,SISTERS,GRANDPARENTS,AUNTS UNCLES,WE ARE HUMANS.Thank you

In my experience, the only thing that changes what gay men a think about HIV, and the risks they take in this respect, is other gay men, talking with them, mano a mano.

Matt got it right -- the most powerful prevention tool we've got is people talking to each other about the issue. But that's where I think ads like this can come in handy. Just look at the amount of discussion we've had here about HIV prevention -- what works, what doesn't -- because of these provocative ads.

As most of you know, I'm a fan of provocative prevention campaigns, because I think that campaigns that provoke discussions between individuals are the only ones that stand a chance of having an impact, if any. The ad's impact will only be indirect -- by provoking discussions -- it's the discussions themselves that sometimes lead to changed perceptions and behaviours.

I ran an ad on some phone booths in New York back in 2004 saying "HUGE SALE! Buy Crystal, get HIV FREE!" You can see the ad here. The ads, like the LA Center's ad, pissed a lot of people off, but also brought meth out of the closet here in NYC. Gay men talked about our problem with meth, many for the first time. And most feel that perceptions have changed. The jury is still out on how much behaviours have changed because of it.

Getting gay men to take seriously the issue of HIV again will be a very hard nut to crack. I think a few shocking ads might get people talking again -- a necessary first step.

As for the possible down-side of these ads -- creating or reinforcing misperceptions that if you're not gay, then you're not at risk -- again, the ad itself isn't going to change anyone's minds about anything -- you'll notice in this thread that no one who feels that AIDS is EVERYONE's problem said "well, ya know, after seeing the ad, I've decided I might be wrong, and that maybe it's just a gay thing."

But what about reinforcing misperceptions. What about those who already think it's just a gay problem -- won't this reinforce their opinion? There's certainly a risk of that. I'd bet good money however that they'd still be surprised by the ad. They might think that way, but they also probably know their opinion ISN'T very P.C., and would be surprised to see it on a billboard. I'm betting their first thought would be "who posted that?" And then they might read the small type. I'm betting they wouldn't just think "yes, I knew i was right -- there it is on a billboard!"

I'm even willing to bet that if two homophobic teenagers drive by and see this ad, it might start a discussion as to who placed the ad and why -- they might even figure it out -- it's a gay group being provocative in an attempt to get other gay men to remember that HIV is still a risk.